In Parliament this afternoon, Collins gave two examples of what she believed were ‘‘assumptions based on incorrect facts’’ and a misunderstanding of New Zealand law in his report.

She said there were "many" problems with the report, which was being peer reviewed by Robert Fisher QC.

Binnie relied on an ‘‘incorrect understanding’’ of a scientist’s evidence, she told MPs.

‘‘Justice Binnie asserts that a named scientist testified at the first trial that he had chemically enhanced the prints and later sought to resile from this," said Collins.

‘‘The reference to chemical enhancement was actually an error on a label attached to a fingerprint and this was explained as such by a scientist at the [2009] retrial.’’

Collins said Binnie did not take into account the correction.

During the re-trial, defence lawyers also asserted that the fact that evidence [from the original case] was no longer available could be interpreted adversely. Binnie wrongly assumed this was correct, Collins said.

Binnie bit back this morning, calling for his report to provided to Bain and made public.

It was a "curious feature" of the Bain case that all "external" judges who have looked at the case have rejected the arguments of the Solicitor General and the Crown Law Office regarding David Bain's guilt, he said.

He is understood to have suggested that Bain was innocent beyond reasonable doubt.

Bain is seeking compensation for his wrongful conviction and arrest. He spent almost 13 years in jail but was aquitted at a retrial in 2009.

He stands to get almost $2 million - but the Government is not legally obliged to pay out.

Collins has said she was hoping to release the report to the public by the end of the week.